Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

How permanence do you need?

Is it acceptable for NPC cities and other developer content to be destroyed?

If yes, by what means?   Hostile players or NPCs doing the deed to something planned by a GM or expansion.

If no, all content should remain the same so you never miss content for  example?
Nanfoodle

Comments

  • alkarionlogalkarionlog Member EpicPosts: 3,379
    you mean like they destroyed the starter zone of the UO and how aion destroyed a lot of fortress and maps.

    or players attacking and destroying the cities?

    if was like UO did I find ok, they moved, let the starter town in ruins and make a camp close by where it become the starter zone, something like the world take a hit and here is the ruins.

    now if was the way aion or a player destroying then its bad, that is just removing so the devs would have less to work on and players taking down cities would make virtually imposssible for anyone new join up, shadownbane was a game who you had some starter towns, no one could attack these, but everything else was player made so, it become impossible you join up unless you obey the guilds and they wanted people who did what was told, not to have fun, then it closed
    KyleranAlBQuirky
    FOR HONOR, FOR FREEDOM.... and for some money.
  • Vermillion_RaventhalVermillion_Raventhal Member EpicPosts: 4,099
    you mean like they destroyed the starter zone of the UO and how aion destroyed a lot of fortress and maps.

    or players attacking and destroying the cities?

    if was like UO did I find ok, they moved, let the starter town in ruins and make a camp close by where it become the starter zone, something like the world take a hit and here is the ruins.

    now if was the way aion or a player destroying then its bad, that is just removing so the devs would have less to work on and players taking down cities would make virtually imposssible for anyone new join up, shadownbane was a game who you had some starter towns, no one could attack these, but everything else was player made so, it become impossible you join up unless you obey the guilds and they wanted people who did what was told, not to have fun, then it closed
    Any means you think are acceptable.  I think players rampaging cities would be an issue.  You'd likely have nothing left afterawhile unless there were some difficult siege mechanisms.

  • MendelMendel Member EpicPosts: 3,905
    Before a game allows terrain destruction and I become comfortable with that, that game needs to handle all forms of natural destruction -- floods, fires, tornadoes, etc.  And if there is my character's favorite tavern is on fire, then there had also be a way to fight the fires.  So, something more than pretty graphics; a complete game system.

    After the game implements natural disasters appropriately, then I'll consider other players destroying property, if there are legal repercussions for destroying my house.  Destruction for destruction's sake isn't for me.



    AlBQuirky

    Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.

  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 28,620
    Is it acceptable for NPC cities and other developer content to be destroyed?

    If yes, by what means?   Hostile players or NPCs doing the deed to something planned by a GM or expansion.

    If no, all content should remain the same so you never miss content for  example?
    Yes, I'm all for cities being destroyed or taken hostage. One of my disappointments regarding Rift. When the game launched, various areas could be held for quite a bit by npc invading hosts. But then people started complaining. One person complained on the forums that it interfered with his/her "questing." It's my understanding that they changed the time period an area can be held. Not sure if this is true but I suspect it is.

    I'm fine with cities being destroyed. I'm also fine with that generating another type of content where players need to band together to retrieve other players' items left behind.

    There needs to be a flow between removing content and building up content.
    ConstantineMerusAlBQuirky
  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 28,620
    Mendel said:
    Before a game allows terrain destruction and I become comfortable with that, that game needs to handle all forms of natural destruction -- floods, fires, tornadoes, etc.  And if there is my character's favorite tavern is on fire, then there had also be a way to fight the fires.  So, something more than pretty graphics; a complete game system.

    After the game implements natural disasters appropriately, then I'll consider other players destroying property, if there are legal repercussions for destroying my house.  Destruction for destruction's sake isn't for me.



    omg why? I get the idea of putting out a fire but why should there be natural disasters? It could be a nice touch but it could also just be another thing that doesn't add anything to the game play.
  • coretex666coretex666 Member EpicPosts: 3,838
    I am fine with content being destroyed as long as my character's progression is not affected.

    Any cause is fine, for me, as long as it makes sense.
    AlBQuirky
  • iixviiiixiixviiiix Member RarePosts: 2,131
    What type of game you are taking about ?
  • AmatheAmathe Member LegendaryPosts: 7,383
    I don't enjoy seeing familiar places get destroyed. WoW did that. So did GW2. I hated it each time. 
    PalebaneUngoodAlBQuirkyJeffSpicoli

    EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests

  • Vermillion_RaventhalVermillion_Raventhal Member EpicPosts: 4,099
    iixviiiix said:
    What type of game you are taking about ?
    Could be any type.  Just talking scenarios where it would be acceptable.  If it is acceptable at all.
  • PalebanePalebane Member RarePosts: 3,930
    edited May 2019
    Usually more harm than good when they Cataclysm or NGE things, imo. ESO New Tamriel might be an exception depending on who you talk to. If they ever messed with Neriak I would never return to Norrath.
    AmatheAlBQuirky

    Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.

  • SteelhelmSteelhelm Member UncommonPosts: 332
    I can't really think of an mmorpg without NPCs, I'm not that sandboxy. I think NPCs serve a certain purpose. If I would have to say what that purpose is, it could very well be permanence. They give the player some kind feeling of stability for a better word, a feeling of a bigger world and hope. If players could destroy all the NPCs and their dwellings, I don't know what kind of a game that would it be...
    As a design choice I wouldn't go anywhere near it...
    A developer replacing content they themselves created is just stupid imo... Better to make another game imo...
    AlBQuirky
    Talking about games where thousands of players exist simultaneously in a single instance and mechanics related to such games.
  • Hawkaya399Hawkaya399 Member UncommonPosts: 564
    edited May 2019
    Is it acceptable for NPC cities and other developer content to be destroyed?

    If yes, by what means?   Hostile players or NPCs doing the deed to something planned by a GM or expansion.

    If no, all content should remain the same so you never miss content for  example?
    Slowly sure, but I don't think it should be easy to do. In Wurm Online, on pvp servers, it's relatively easy for powerful kingdoms to wipe out even established deeds, for example. I think the balance of power should fall more towards the defender. Griefing can't be entirely removed from PvP in these instances, but it can be discouraged. It's the tendency in open world FFA PvP MMO's for the most powerful to choke the weak. It's hte source of much stink, and the inspiration for other games to follow radical new approaches, like Crowfall. In my view, this is human nature, or nature itself. To some degree, nature should be allowed to run its course. Conflict and frustration in these circumstances should be the norm and accepted, if only to allow our inner nature to come out. However, it should be understood the powerful choking the weak is not really challenging for either if it's too unbalanced. It can be the wellspring of wondrous stories and adventure, since David vs Goliath is the ultimate motivator for the hardcore gamer. Yet it's questionable how much fun a griefer gets from choking the life out of their defenseless prey, and not even the hardcore like a fight with no winning strategy. I think at the end of the day, every effort should be made to favor the defender, whilst remainng realistic about the reality of power struggles. Sometimes it's better to simply step back and let the stink out, than to overcontrol it and in turn push away the most hardcore players to other MMO's.

    Some of us enter into these MMO/RPG worlds for the good AND bad-the positive AND negative. We want the full range of emotions and experience. It transcends the game and trespasses the boundaries between virtual and real. At some point, it's no longer a game anymore. Whilst I think we're a tiny minority, we're the types who'll flock to Darkfall or other bastard children of FFA open world PvP, like that seen on the Darktide server in Asherons Call. It's so much more than mere PvP. That's a shadow of the real reason. At least for me, the reason is deeper, it reaches into the soul and enters into a place I can only describe as uncontrolled, wild and magical. Not to kill another and/or ravage the sandbox world, but to have the choice to help or harm, as any other. Almost all MMO's do not grant that choice. Instead they choose to clamp down on the human spirit, and patronize to no end. So FFA PvP in open world is special. Very.
    Post edited by Hawkaya399 on
    AlBQuirky
  • AmarantharAmaranthar Member EpicPosts: 4,198
    edited May 2019
    Only if the NPCs can defend it, repair it, and even move elsewhere and built another version of it.

    For ancient ruins, I'd not allow it, and I'd have the reasons for that built into the Lore.
    AlBQuirky

    Once upon a time....

  • MendelMendel Member EpicPosts: 3,905
    Sovrath said:
    Mendel said:
    Before a game allows terrain destruction and I become comfortable with that, that game needs to handle all forms of natural destruction -- floods, fires, tornadoes, etc.  And if there is my character's favorite tavern is on fire, then there had also be a way to fight the fires.  So, something more than pretty graphics; a complete game system.

    After the game implements natural disasters appropriately, then I'll consider other players destroying property, if there are legal repercussions for destroying my house.  Destruction for destruction's sake isn't for me.



    omg why? I get the idea of putting out a fire but why should there be natural disasters? It could be a nice touch but it could also just be another thing that doesn't add anything to the game play.
    If a company is making a complete world, make the world completely.  Then worry about putting in human activities.  I'd rather see the entire physical natural world simulated than just selected elements.  Just my preference.



    AlBQuirky

    Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.

  • rojoArcueidrojoArcueid Member EpicPosts: 10,409
    edited May 2019
    I like the way GW2 does it where NPCs invade a town and if players(and npc guards) fail to defend them the enemies take over the town. Then players have the opportunity to take it back and NPCs later return and rebuild.

    Taking that system to the next level by turning those events into open world raids (similar to the big centaur event in the Harathi Hinterlands) but allowing players to reinforce the area to help defend it, and crafters can use their jobs for rebuilding and/or rearming npcs to help players with boss fights.
    AlBQuirky




  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Member EpicPosts: 8,596
    I backed Ashes because of their node system. I followed EQN because of their ever changing world that was enhanced by storybricks, where NPC would change with that changing world. This is something I have dreamed of in a MMO but no one has been able to pull off. GW2 had their living world but its was cheaply executed and the cycle was too short, 2 weeks is not enough time to enjoy the changes. I like the idea of something taking many months to build up but can die in a day. 
    Vermillion_RaventhalAlBQuirky
  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Member EpicPosts: 8,596
    Mendel said:
    Before a game allows terrain destruction and I become comfortable with that, that game needs to handle all forms of natural destruction -- floods, fires, tornadoes, etc.  And if there is my character's favorite tavern is on fire, then there had also be a way to fight the fires.  So, something more than pretty graphics; a complete game system.

    After the game implements natural disasters appropriately, then I'll consider other players destroying property, if there are legal repercussions for destroying my house.  Destruction for destruction's sake isn't for me.



    Thats what Ashes is heading for if they pull it off I do not know.
    Catibrie
  • Vermillion_RaventhalVermillion_Raventhal Member EpicPosts: 4,099
    If you had good procedural system I would like to see some change and destruction.  Also having NPC civilizations rise up with random personality and strengths based on their race if left to their own devices.  

    I want players to be able to claim dungeons and forts and become bandits or monsters.  Bring in minions and PvP other players. Other players can come and destroy their lairs.  A  real monster and bandit faction would be awesome.  Let me not get side tracked lol.

    Have to say I do think there does need to be at least a few hard places that never change.
    Steelhelm
  • iixviiiixiixviiiix Member RarePosts: 2,131
    iixviiiix said:
    What type of game you are taking about ?
    Could be any type.  Just talking scenarios where it would be acceptable.  If it is acceptable at all.
    I don't think that's a problem though it will ruined gameplay experience .

  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 4,223
    There was a great discussion about this very idea several years ago, regarding Shadowbane.
    Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member EpicPosts: 6,250
    edited May 2019
    It's a tough question to give a simple "yes/no" answer to.

    In an MMO, not for me. If "player based changes", too many players with too many agendas for this to be even remotely fun for me. "Developer based changes" would work if lore supported it. Many players hated WoW's Cataclysm expansion. I enjoyed the world changes, but there were other changes that I did not like. If the changes are too drastic and I'm relearning the game, I may as well seek a totally new game to learn.

    Time is a huge factor. MMOs do not portray time very well, if at all. Sure, many have dates and time of day, but the players don't feel it at all, except maybe the sunset and sunrise. "Rome wasn't built in a day" is an appropriate cliche here. Sure, destruction can be quick and dirty, but then what? Is there a brand new city or base camp when I log in next?

    Most of the "changes" I've seen in MMOs is very one-sided. Granted, I don't play army vs army, realm vs realm (vs realm), or any other PvP based MMO, but "player based changes" are usually one-sided affairs. Even "developer based changes" are one-sided. In WoW, did we get to try to defend Azeroth? Nope. Next time we logged in, the change was done. We did get to fight some battles in the big cities, but eventually, what the developers had planned took place and there was nothing we players could do.

    I guess my problem with change is "control." I will rarely have any control over any change and just have to roll with whatever happens. Some changes may be fun, others just a pain the backside. I'd rather just click that launcher and know what I'm getting into rather than... "SURPRISE!"

    PS: I am not so into games/gaming that I read every patch release note.
    Ungood

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR


  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 4,223
    If you had good procedural system I would like to see some change and destruction.  Also having NPC civilizations rise up with random personality and strengths based on their race if left to their own devices.  

    I want players to be able to claim dungeons and forts and become bandits or monsters.  Bring in minions and PvP other players. Other players can come and destroy their lairs.  A  real monster and bandit faction would be awesome.  Let me not get side tracked lol.

    Have to say I do think there does need to be at least a few hard places that never change.
    The Crowfall team already address this very idea and talked about it at length in regards to game development. Might want to watch some of their videos.
    Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
  • JeffSpicoliJeffSpicoli Member EpicPosts: 2,849
    Amathe said:
    I don't enjoy seeing familiar places get destroyed. WoW did that. So did GW2. I hated it each time. 
    My initial reaction to OP was , yes, of course i want a MMO to change and evolve or be destoryed over time like a living breathing world would but then as you mentioned i thought of both WOW's abomination of a expansion in Cataclysm and the eye sore of a destroyed Lions Arch. Maybe they just didn't do it right ?
    AlBQuirkyPalebaneSteelhelm
    • Aloha Mr Hand ! 

  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 4,223
    Amathe said:
    I don't enjoy seeing familiar places get destroyed. WoW did that. So did GW2. I hated it each time. 
    My initial reaction to OP was , yes, of course i want a MMO to change and evolve or be destoryed over time like a living breathing world would but then as you mentioned i thought of both WOW's abomination of a expansion in Cataclysm and the eye sore of a destroyed Lions Arch. Maybe they just didn't do it right ?
    Well, other games, as far back as Shadowbane, have tried this as well, with varying levels of failure. In fact the Shadowbane developers talked about this very point at length.

    So, I think first we would need to find a game that did it right to then see what other games may have done wrong.

    But, I do not think, to date, we have had anyone do it 'right', which starts to put this kind of thing into the category of "Just a general bad idea", but that does not mean, some game could pull it off perfectly.. it just means, they would need to do it some unique way that has never been done before.
    AlBQuirky
    Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Sign In or Register to comment.